Deverus 2025-01-07 09:16 p.m.your honour.
i'd first like to address the issues presented by the defense counsel.
the flaws in the affidavit, while few, have been recognized. as of this time, i have directed a supervisory investigator to develop a superseding affidavit, which will be accompanied by a superseding indictment. at that time we will motion for the extension of the pre-trial period by 10 days to prevent prejudice to the defendant and allow for the defense counsel to review the superseding affidavit and indictment and prepare their defense.
nevertheless;
the present indictment charges the defendant with one count; second-degree murder, the statute of which requires any individual being convicted of this crime being proven to, beyond a reasonable doubt, having (a) killed someone intentionally, and (b) having done so with the intent to kill or commit great bodily harm.
in examining whether probable cause exists in this case, we turn to the affidavit of probable cause, namely, exhibit a contained therein. in exhibit a, which is video evidence taken by the victim, just_dapper, we can identify that the defendant, identified by his username at 00:17, is holding a sign reading "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT, SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN AND KILLED."
the defendant, when the victim jumped across a small fence into the parking lot of clark county regional hospital, brandished a handgun and discharged it multiple times in the direction of the victim, striking him multiple times and killing him. even after the victim had been killed, defendant continued to discharge his handgun until the victim's lifeless corpse had fallen onto the ground.
addressing the elements of proof as required in second-degree murder, we turn first to the matter of whether or not the defendant intentionally killed the victim. as we can observe in exhibit a, the defendant brandished his firearm in a deliberate fashion and discharged it directly at the victim, not accidentally striking any of the other potential bystanders he very well could have. while showcasing the defendant's competent aim, it also showcases that he had one apparent target: the victim. this is only further substantiated when the defendant holstered his firearm after the victim's dead body fell to the ground.
now we turn to the second element: whether or not the defendant had the intent to kill or commit great bodily injury when he discharged his firearm at the victim. in this regard, we turn to the sign the defendant was holding, which clearly stated that anyone which the defendant determined to be a trespasser would be shot, and those who survived the defendant's first salvo would be shot again and surely killed. needless to say, it is clear that the defendant, even before the actions which took place, demonstrated a clear intent to kill or cause bodily injury to anyone who he deemed a trespasser, and in this case, that supposed trespasser is the victim, just_dapper.
probable cause is no new topic, and “[exists] where the facts and circumstances...are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 161 (1949)
the state strongly asserts that the facts, as laid out above, would warrant any man of reasonable caution to believe that the defendant killed the victim both intentionally, and with the intent to kill or cause great bodily injury.
thank you.
cc: @vinc @vloqsouls